Ageod's Thirty Years War

[numantia]

Is there any chance that you could convince the good people at Ageod to adjust the mechanics of their game so that Pike and Shot could be integrated into the game for fighting large battles?

Playing out more than half a dozen or so large battles would make their upcoming game too cumbersome, but being able to switch over to Pike and Shot to resolve a Lutzen would be incredibly dramatic.

And I'm sure the integration would help the sales of both games.

I haven't played Pike and Shot, but this makes lots of sense. Maybe not for every minor battle, but it would be great to have it for the 2-3 big battles in a scenario. I guess this is not a trivial technical problem, but it makes sense to look into it (it possibly would be great to combine other AGEOD games, too, with other games for the corresponding game periods).

[Philippe]

You're really talking about two different companies, both of them very small. Their resources are already committed to other projects, and forging a link between two dissimilar game engines would be a massive project.

Even if you ignore the computer side of the question, the two game designs would have to be brought into alignment, and that's not something you retro-fit onto a system.

I can think of a lot of things I would rather Leibstandarte did with his time rather than work on a clunky retrofit. That project would put the English Civil War on indefinate hold (if it didn't kill it altogether), a late war scenario for the French intervention would be off the table, and Poland, Lithania, and Holland would never get their own wars.

[NicoleJS]

Is there any chance that you could convince the good people at Ageod to adjust the mechanics of their game so that Pike and Shot could be integrated into the game for fighting large battles?
Playing out more than half a dozen or so large battles would make their upcoming game too cumbersome, but being able to switch over to Pike and Shot to resolve a Lutzen would be incredibly dramatic.

And I'm sure the integration would help the sales of both games.

Haha, ist we need a 30 wars strategy/operational game from ageod.
I would be happy if they simply allowed the ability to import results from an "offline method" (although you might be able to accomplish the same by editing save game files...)

[Leibst]

Dear friends,

Indeed it would be very nice but in fact just thinking a minute about he technical effort looks like a huge amount of work that could mean to remake completeley Pike and shot database to allow an interface with Ageod engine.
So it would be mainly a Slitherine task imo.

Not a great deal for a game with such a nich subject.

[mjw]

Players have been asking for some type of tactical game be used to resolve AGEOD battles for a long time. I saw a few requesting that Scourge of war: Gettysburg be used in ACW2. Forgetting the fact that they are different engines and different designs, that integration- assuming it is done- would ruin the game.

The AI is challenging in most AGE games because if you make an operational mistake such as campaigning without enough supply, attacking without realizing your cohesion is low or failing to maneuver subsections of the army so they can support each other, then you will likely lose the tactical battle: AS YOU SHOULD. Now, of your able to fight the tactics battles, then people who know THE GAME and know how to beat the AI can still win tactical battles against the AI when they are under supplied, outnumbered or scattered. For most tactical games, it's only a matter of learning how the AI operates. Even without knowing, it's generally not hard to beat tactical AI if you are familiar with the game.

So if integrated, operational decisions- which AGEOD games are all about- become meaningless since no matter what decision you make, you can win the tactical battles; even ones there is no way you could win on a real battlefield. Operational and strategic games allow players to make operational and strategic plans and decisions. Until tactical AI gets MUCH better, any attempt at integrating will simply provide a "back up" opportunity to beat the AI regardless of how bad your position is.

[Hrothgar]

Excellent point. I've felt this way for a long time. In fact, even in games which do combine a strategic/operational layer with playable battles, I always let the AI run the battles. I do this for exactly the reasons you cite. Generally, a decent human can always run rings around a tactical AI after a few plays. This allows the player to make all sorts of strategic/operational errors without any consequence, because he can always make up for those errors by winning battles.

I do like the new pre-battle choices in the recent AGEOD games, such as this one, but any more control over the battles by the player would simply ruin the game.

[Cardinal Ape]

I wholeheartedly agreed with the last two posts.

Those reasons are why I gave up on the Total War series many years ago. Granted, I did have a bit of fun abusing the hell out of horse archers, you could literally run circles around the AI. Watching the battlefield swirl with Cantabrian circles was pretty mesmerizing.

[veji1]

For tactical battles, the best option would be to have something akin to the old battleground games "command control" : be able to ask your division generals to try and take a feature, hold at all cost or not, advance cautiously or charge... and then let the AI execute with reckless leaders tending to charge, slow ones tending to never really reach the objective, etc...

[Baris]

There is good approach in Dominions series that it doesn't harm PBEM system. Before battle players give somehow vague orders to units for tactical rounds and watch the replay of battle without actually playing battle. Bad orders result friendly fire or chasing not so important unit.

[Hrothgar]

Yes, Dominions does have a good approach, giving the player the chance to issue some pre-battle instructions, then having the battle play out automatically.

Of course, the new system in this game, with the player choosing a deployment and a battle plan is similar, and also seems to give the player some pre-battle input into the course of the battle.

[Ebbingford]

What's with the tags in the first post

Looks like a spammer to me........

[Leibst]

What's with the tags in the first post

Looks like a spammer to me........

good catch.
removed!